The Bitching Thread

[Buffalobiian]

Just think how much more productive you may be without internet access. I'd see it as a challenge to take care of stuff you've been putting off.

Yeah, I thought about that. It's like divine intervention to help me catch up on schoolwork revision. But guess where most of the reference material and data/lectures are stored? xD

I've got some old textbooks that were given to me from 1995 to read I guess.

edit: or my anime backlog. :P

[dragonrage]

Dell is really trying my patience, this is the third time they are going to change the motherboard on one of my laptops. I've never had this much problem with a computer. I think it is cursed, the amount parts that were replaced could have built a new computer and save me the damn headache. I'm not going to buy anything Dell anytime soon.

[UChessmaster]

This guy tried to argue me that weed is not a drug because it is a plant, my iq went down.

[Buffalobiian]

This guy tried to argue me that weed is not a drug because it is a plant, my iq went down.

Well if you ever need a weed/opium mule...

[Sapphire]

This guy tried to argue me that weed is not a drug because it is a plant, my iq went down.

My client at work disagreed with me about the following things last week:

Whether or not 1 is prime.
Whether or not people/reptiles/insects are animals.
Whether or not a person is a thing. (Justification: Nouns are persons, places, OR things, therefore a person cannot also be a thing.)

A friend recommended that when you argue about the definition of something, ask that they define it and that's the quickest way to end an argument. Make them tell you what a "drug" is vs. what a "plant" is, I suppose.

[shinta|hikari]

Thing is, their definition is usually wrong, and if it is, the argument that stems from it is consequently wrong.

[Buffalobiian]

A friend recommended that when you argue about the definition of something, ask that they define it and that's the quickest way to end an argument. Make them tell you what a "drug" is vs. what a "plant" is, I suppose.

You start pretty much ALL arguments with definitions. Debating is done that way too, by defining the topic when you're First Affirmative. First Negative may accept or reject their definition.. but as yourself and shinta have alluded to.. it doesn't make for much of an argument afterwards when you go into definition-arguments since it becomes A-says-but-B-says.

But in your case, and in general, my favourite (and instinctive) move is always to ask them to clarify or explain their definitions. Not only does it clear out any misunderstandings, but when/if they say something really stupid it lets you attack them first. After you make them look stupid (usually from contradicting themselves), THEN you make your argument (if you're supposed to).

I have so much fun tearing people apart it's almost sadistic.

(Another fun thing to do is when people argue that there's only one proper way to do something, you make it so it seems as if they're closed minded in not being able to accept other equally valid ways. There are always two choices.

On the other hand, when you propose a point and the opponent tries to provide an alternative, you bag them out as if they're trying to take an inferior, easy way out. Stop trying to take shortcuts - there's just one way: the hard way.)

[Animeniax]

I like to start arguments by spit balling, which is not necessarily based on definition. Then we see where the discussion/argument leads and redefine our assumptions and definitions as we go.

[Sapphire]

You start pretty much ALL arguments with definitions. Debating is done that way too, by defining the topic when you're First Affirmative. First Negative may accept or reject their definition.. but as yourself and shinta have alluded to.. it doesn't make for much of an argument afterwards when you go into definition-arguments since it becomes A-says-but-B-says.

But in your case, and in general, my favourite (and instinctive) move is always to ask them to clarify or explain their definitions. Not only does it clear out any misunderstandings, but when/if they say something really stupid it lets you attack them first. After you make them look stupid (usually from contradicting themselves), THEN you make your argument (if you're supposed to).

I have so much fun tearing people apart it's almost sadistic.

I may have seen this type of "arguing" from you, pasting definitions of random words with no theme isn't exactly ripping them apart.

[rockmanj]

I don't know if arguments need themes, but I definitely look for a premise that supports the person's conclusion along with reasoning that supports said premise. If neither is sound, then I reject it.

[Buffalobiian]

I may have seen this type of "arguing" from you, pasting definitions of random words with no theme isn't exactly ripping them apart.

That's only the beginning. Definitions are used to establish the playing field for both parties to play on. In our case throwing dictionary meaning show that the opponent isn't using word correctly, as well as providing a somewhat credible source for your own definition.

As for themes, you don't need one for rebuttals (which I mostly used if I think I know what we're talking about). You just need someone with a flawed argument, or an argument with holes.

To give an analogy, you can take down an opponent's castle by poking at weak points or attacking a shaky foundation. You don't need to do it in any particular way/order, nor do you have to counter by building a bigger castle of your own.

That is, you don't have to prove you're right. You just have to show they're wrong - eg. by giving a dictionary definition.

[Kraco]

People won't like you if you argue for an argument's sake and not only to solve a deadlock to proceed with the matter.

[Buffalobiian]

People won't like you if you argue for an argument's sake and not only to solve a deadlock to proceed with the matter.

You can certainly argue for argument's sake, but it's also a way to weed out flawed solutions to existing problems.

For example, net diezens aren't providing a way to reduce piracy or copyright infringement. They're just saying SOPA isn't the way to do it.

[shinta|hikari]

Arguing for argument's sake is interesting and entertaining, but the bad consequences, one of which Kraco mentioned, is not worth it. People, particularly less intellectual ones, tend to be sensitive during arguments.

[Buffalobiian]

Yeah, I often get told that I argue for argument's sake (or develop an argument from a previously low-key conversation). Well.. not often as in by lots of people. Just one person I converse with fairly often.

I'm not so sure if that's the case (unless I have the definition of "arguing for argument's sake" wrong). Basically if someone says something that either:

1) cites a fact or theory without credibility
2) talks about a flow of events or consequences with a logical flaw
3) in general just doesn't make sense or sounds wrong

-then I point it out or wonder/clarify/point it out/ask them about it.

For me, to continue the conversation in agreement as if I didn't pick that up is like continuing a lie. It's also like those social settings where you lie, falsify or just in general buffer everything you say just to keep the other person happy, keep the flow going or keep the party from falling apart. (For me, it pretty much coincides with those events where you laugh and chuckle even when you don't think something is funny - I think we all know what kind of talks we're talking about now).

But if what I was doing was "arguing for argument's sake"... well damn, but that definition I must be doing it then.

I have so much fun tearing people apart it's almost sadistic.

I gave that a bit of thought afterwards as to why I feel that way, and it's a combination of:

1) watching someone struggle, then
2) winning

The first of which pretty much IS sadism.

--------------------------


Anyway, my bitch:

The guy who was meant to come fix my net yesterday didn't turn up. I wasted the day at home away from my headphones (some of you would know how much I love them) so I can hear the door knock. I've had a total of 3 conversations with my net provider (involving crackling phones, lame waiting music and heavy accents - repeated multiple times in each phone call), and they still couldn't find out where the tech went.

Today I called them again (instead of them calling me) to find out that he didn't turn up because it was raining. They'll reschedule a time and SMS it to me later. (and I'm bound to have to ring them back to reschedule at a time which I'm home).

So I'm without decent net again for another week and uni's kinda falling behind too thanks to it.

[Xelbair]

He didn't come because it was raining? are you fucking kidding me?
change the provider ASAP.

[dragonrage]

Buffalobiian, from what I have seen, you're a sick prick. You do have intelligence (even if most of what you say is without a serious point and at times total bullshit) but you have a seriously flawed personality as well. I don't respect you and I don't like you but it certainly doesn't matter since I don't know you in real life or care to. Note that I am stating my opinion with all the "I". The rest of you please forgive the inadequate grammar.

Dissect, negate and make fun of that. Enjoy.

[shinta|hikari]

Are you a victim of what Buff does or something?

He isn't attacking people randomly. He just tries to correct things he sees as flawed, and forcing him to do otherwise is an injustice, and is a much worse act than for what you blame him.

Whether he gains pleasure from that should not matter. Motive is never a justification for the action.

[rockmanj]

Wow...that is a strong animus. I don't think I have seen him do anything that deserves that sort of attack.

[Assertn]

Wow...that is a strong animus. I don't think I have seen him do anything that deserves that sort of attack.

I'm pretty sure dragonrage wrote a similar piece directed at me once. Must be his thing.